Re: [yang-doctors] Yangdoctors last call review of draft-ietf-netmod-module-tags-04

[Christian Hopps <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

I've adopted all your suggestion.

Thanks for the review!

Chris.

> On Feb 13, 2019, at 7:04 AM, Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Reviewer: Robert Wilton
> Review result: Ready with Nits
> 
> I have reviewed this document as part of the YANG doctors directorate's
> ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
> comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of
> the IETF drafts. Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included
> in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should
> treat these comments just like any other last call comments.
> 
> I've already reviewed the previous revision of this document as part of WG LC,
> and any significant comments have already been addressed.  What remains are
> minor nits, that would probably be spotted/addressed by the RFC editor, and I
> leave it to the authors discretion as to whether/how they address these:
> 
> 1. It may be helpful for the introduction to state that the module conforms to
> NMDA (from YANG guidelines section 3.5).  I.e. add the following text +
> reference.
> 
>      The YANG data model in this document conforms to the Network
>     Management Datastore Architecture defined in
>     RFC 8342.
> 
> 2. Paragraph 4.1, perhaps "will be" => "is"?
> 
> 3. Section 4.3, "removed with using" => "removed using"
> 
> 4. The YANG module itself:
> 
> 4i) NetMod => NETMOD (two places)
> 
> 4ii) The RFC 2119 boilerplate should probably be updated to cover RFC 8174.
> 
> 4iii) Line length is a bit long in places.  I checked using pyang against 69
> chars and got this, so at least line 89 should be fixed (but the RFC editor
> will also fix this): [e-mail]:56: warning: line length
> 72 exceeds 69 characters [e-mail]:57: warning: line
> length 71 exceeds 69 characters [e-mail]:63: warning:
> line length 71 exceeds 69 characters [e-mail]:64:
> warning: line length 71 exceeds 69 characters
> [e-mail]:86: warning: line length 72 exceeds 69
> characters [e-mail]:89: warning: line length 86 exceeds
> 69 characters
> 
> 4iv) Possibly add ", but they have no operational effect" to the end of the
> description of masked-tag.  Although, it is pretty obvious to me that they
> would just be ignored.
> 
> 5) Section 6.
>  - Suggest "It's" => "It is", "2" => "two", "3" => "three".
>  - Suggest "is classifying modules in only a logical manner" => "only
>  classifies modules in a logical manner"
> 
> 6) Section 7.1.
> - Since these are guidelines, I suggest "can" => "MAY".
> 
> 7) Section 8.1.
> - I note that this section uses "SHOULD", and section 3.4 just says reserved.
> Should section 3.4 also use RFC2119 language to be aigned at all?
>